Within the space of around 12 hours such hopes were dashed as England lost again and thousands of passengers found themselves engulfed in "Heathrow hell" once more.

The message from both seems to be that the problems for both the country's national game and its premier airport are far more deep-rooted than many imagined.

Related Articles

Britain does not have a stellar reputation when it comes to delivering major projects on time. Wembley was years late and cost far more than expected.

At least Terminal 5 did not bust its budget and opened when it was supposed to.

There have been months of testing its operation to destruction, with a series of trials involving thousands of mock passengers trooping through the building.

So it is not unreasonable to hope that BAA, which has been almost as much of an Aunt Sally as British Airways, might have made sure that its computer system would allow everyone on the first shift start work on time.

It was hardly a ringing endorsement of its preparations that three flights left without any luggage.

British Airways, the airline whose fortunes were supposed to be transformed by the new terminal, has been repeating the mantra "fit for five" for several years.

Alas the latest events showed that the airline was manifestly unfit for its new home. On a clear sunny day it has been forced to cancel more than 30 flights.

Even if passengers on those flights were found seats on other planes, it does not reflect well on BA which had promised better once it got into its new terminal.

With bags arriving late and passengers missing connecting flights, the reputation of both companies has taken something of a battering.

The ill-tempered finger pointing between them has hardly helped their public image either.

The day one debacle should at least get one message across. It takes more than a shiny new building to make an airport efficient and fit for purpose.